Cratched Does California

It must have been around 10 in the morning of Christmas 1981 and the beans and rice from last night’s meal had long since stopped filling our stomachs. R and I had been on Telegraph since 8:00 or so feeling like Dylan’s Mr. Tambourine Man. You know–jingle jangle morning and all that. At least the sun was shining. It was California after all.

As the morning passed, about the only other people we saw on the street were some disgruntled policemen who preferred to be home with their families, a hobo or two, and some people going to the church near the university. Oh yeah, and the Persian guy who had a flower stand in front of Cody’s bookstore that was open until 2:00 PM Christmas day for those folks who had forgotten to buy a gift for their lover or their mom or someone else who appreciated flowers. R and I didn’t have anyone like that, nor did it seem like there would be anybody like that in our near future.

It must have been around noon when a couple frat boys drove up Telegraph in their BMW and yelled something at us. I don’t know whether it was pleasant or not–after a while you just tune out people who have a history of harassing you and frat boys had that kind of history, as did people driving BMWs.

Anyhow, after that car drove by, we noticed the smell of fresh roasted turkey wafting down the avenue. You know how in the cartoons they show the aroma of good food floating like waves across the screen and into some character’s nose? Then the character floats on the fumes towards their source and, just before the dog or cat eats the meat, a human hand appears and takes it away.

Well, that’s how it was with us. That turkey aroma was pulling us in like a sugar donut pulls in flies. We were so hungry we followed the aroma up the street to a midscale restaurant where all we could do was stare at the people eating their Christmas dinners. Nice big slabs of turkey, piles of mashed potatoes with gravy, rolls and butter, pies of pumpkin, pies of mincemeat, all the good things in life. And bottles of wine and beer, too. I would do anything to get some of that food, but what I did instead was walk back down the street with R and ingest the fumes.

If we weren’t depressed before, we definitely were now. I was ready to go back to the apartment and boil some more beans, if there were any left. R was ready to just give up. We looked at each other and began to walk away from Telegraph Avenue when the Persian guy called “Hey!” I looked over, wondering if he was yelling at us or someone else. He looked right at me and beckoned me over to his stand. Bring your friend, he said. I grabbed R by the coat and we walked over to his stand, wondering what was up. Maybe he was going to ask us to sweep for him and give us a couple bucks. He reached under where he kept his money box in his cart and pulled out two steaming styrofoam to-go containers.

I don’t celebrate your holiday. But you guys need, what do you say, Christmas cheer. Then he handed us each a hot turkey dinner with a slab of turkey, piles of potatoes and gravy, rolls and butter and a piece of pie. I took the mincemeat and R took the pumpkin. We felt like two twentieth-century Bob Cratcheds in Ronnie Reagan’s America.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion to the previous two and was published early in 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

18 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. ron said on December 22nd, 2007 at 8:56am #

    You obviously haven’t read most of my pieces on Iran. I always have been and always will be opposed to any attack on Iran. Your remarks don’t really merit any response but I felt that I had to clarify my position for those readers who might actually believe your lies.

  2. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 9:10am #

    I too am opposed to any attack on Iran.

    As you know, it is very difficult to know which way some people are blowing into the wind.

    Let’s both work then to insure that innocent Iranians are not murdered as the innocent Iraqis and Palestinians are being maimed & murdered now.

    Even PZ Myers has posted some of the most foul Muslim bashing on the net.

  3. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 9:26am #

    Ron, is it enough to claim that your blatant neglect of the critical role that Zionist propaganda and mis-information are playing to engineer the destruction of Iran forces and objective observer to accuse you of gross negligence or abject ignorance.

  4. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 9:36am #

    Since I have read your articles carefully, I would emphasize one of your most preposterous assertions.

    On Sept. 18th in your piece claiming it is “really about the oil” you made the bald faced assertion that;

    “there is no doubt that most of the US political establishment supports Israeli expansion… ”

    If this statement is true, how do you know this?

  5. ron said on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:15am #

    a couple things (I’ve said this before but you seem to forget). I do not ignore or disregard the role of Zionism in the middle east–I just don’t believe it to be the one and guiding force behind all that is wrong there like you do. Instead, I look at the broader history of the region and conclude that US imperialism and its predecessor British colonialism play a more important role. This conclusion leads me to your next question regarding the role of oil and who controls it. The US needs to control energy resources to maintain and expand its dominance. It syas so right in noecons paper on the PNAC and in the neoliberals; writings and economic machinations. From my interpretation of history–which utilizes Marx, Luxembourg and Lenein (to name a few of the fundamnetals), this means that US imperialism trumps Zionism. People who are obsessed with the role of Zionism refuse to accept this line of thought despite its historical and objective continuity.

  6. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:35am #

    Anybody who claimed that Zionism was “the one and guiding source of all that is wrong” would be making the same error as claiming that oil was “the one and guiding force …”

    Deadbeat has whacked you time and again for such a obvious distortion.

    Oil 60 per cent, Zionism 40 percent …

    Zionism 57.5 per cent; oil 42.5 per cent …

  7. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 10:40am #

    Do you stand by your published assertion above;

    “there is no doubt that most of the US political establishment supports Israeli expansion… ”

    I have plenty of doubts about what you claim is beyond dispute.

  8. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 11:00am #

    Ron, would a scholar of history and imperialism say what you have just said above?

    “It syas (sic) so right in noecons paper on the PNAC and in the neoliberals; writings and economic machinations.”

    “It says so right in …”

    Therefore, the neocons’ and neoliberals’ statements must be a truthful presentation of their position without any distortion or mis-direction?

    “The Iraqis have weapons of mass …the President said.

    “It’s all about the oil,” Greenspan said.

    How can we doubt HIM?

    And here is the church and here is the steeple…

  9. ron said on December 22nd, 2007 at 11:31am #

    i never said oil was the only reason–you insist that zionism is….

  10. gerald spezio said on December 22nd, 2007 at 11:31am #

    Ron, I can’t hear any missle rattling out of big oil in Houston advocating more Iraqi style “regime change” for Iran.

    Maybe the big oil colossus hasn’t paid up their peeyar bill?

    Why do I hear such virulent and open missle rattling for murder against Iran from Zionists of all stripes.?

    Do you think that the Zionists are covering for big oil?

  11. jaime said on December 22nd, 2007 at 2:52pm #

    You turkeys sure do a good job of despoiling a nice Christmas story!

  12. Kim Petersen said on December 22nd, 2007 at 3:06pm #

    Gerald, what I see is that Ron does not deny the role of Zionism in the racist, colonialist expansionism of Israel; he merely grants American imperialism preeminence. You grant Zionism preeminence. Both imperialism and Zionism are rotten to the core. To defeat them both solidarity is requisite for progressives. It is fine to debate the theoretical underpinnings of rotten forces at work in the world, but in the end let’s be respectful of the other person’s views and seek solidarity in overthrowing the rotten forces. That we would all agree that Zionism and imperialism must be overthrown takes precedence over the squabbles of which is a greater evil — both are evil.

  13. Deadbeat said on December 22nd, 2007 at 3:10pm #

    Mr. Jacobs takes the position that he doesn’t ignores the role Zionism plays in the Middle East but doesn’t believe it to the “the one and guiding force behind all that is wrong there.” He is presenting an analysis that “[looks] at the broader history of the region and concludes that U.S. Imperialism … play[s] a more important role”. On oil he states that “[t]he The US needs to control energy resources to maintain and expand its dominance.” According to Mr. Jacobs that the need for the U.S. to control oil is written in the neoconservative’s blueprint Project of a New American Century (PNAC) and in neoliberals writings and interprets history from Marx, Luxembourg and Lenin to conclude that “US Imperialism trumps Zionism”.

    These seem like reasonable and cogent arguments. Who can argue with … history? Also who can question ones “radicalism” when you name drop Marx, Lenin, and Luxembourg? Essentially Mr. Jacob’s position matches the position of the ISO on the War in Iraq which places the onus on “U.S. Imperialism”. However that argument is specious because it employs a strawman fallacy of “U.S. Imperialism”. This argument instead of enlightening listeners has the opposite effect of redirecting listeners away from confronting extremely important issues of race and power as configured within U.S. society.

    Notice that Mr. Jacobs only sees Zionism as a Middle East issue. The problem with that view is that Zionism is an ideology that can extend beyond regional boundaries. Therefore to NOT consider the reality of Zionism’s influence extending beyond the boundaries of the Middle East is to be myopic at best and deceitful at worse.

    There is another irritating and disgustingly hypocritical callousness about the “U.S. Imperialism” fallacy. Anti-Zionist and anti-racist leftist who are speaking out have never said that U.S. Imperialism is NOT a factor. The anti-Zionist left has consistently stated that Zionism IS a factor in the War in Iraq and that. Zionism within the United States exercises an inordinate amount of influence on U.S foreign policy. In other words anti-Zionist are exposing and educating the public that Zionism is an important factor of U.S. Imperialism TODAY and that confronting Zionism means CONFRONTING U.S. IMPERIALISM.

    Confronting Zionism weakens a powerful group and making the public aware of Zionism WITHIN the United States will make people more vigilant of this virulent ideology. Also confronting Zionism expands solidarity with people of color who feel the brunt of racism and the backlash of racism that Zionism effects.

    To illustrate the absurdity and disgusting hypocrisy of Mr. Jacobs’s rhetoric, as a “radical” of the 1960’s, I’m sure he’s quite familiar with the Civil Rights movement. Now imagine Mr. Jacobs at a coffee shop up in Harlem sitting across Malcolm X telling him that “U.S. Imperialism trumps racism”. In other words, Malcolm X confronted racism as it existed WITHIN the United States. “Progressives” need to do the same regarding Zionism’s influence within United States society.

  14. Deadbeat said on December 22nd, 2007 at 3:14pm #

    Gerald, what I see is that Ron does not deny the role of Zionism in the racist, colonialist expansionism of Israel; he merely grants American imperialism preeminence. You grant Zionism preeminence. Both imperialism and Zionism are rotten to the core. To defeat them both solidarity is requisite for progressives. It is fine to debate the theoretical underpinnings of rotten forces at work in the world, but in the end let’s be respectful of the other person’s views and seek solidarity in overthrowing the rotten forces. That we would all agree that Zionism and imperialism must be overthrown takes precedence over the squabbles of which is a greater evil — both are evil.

    You are right — both are evil. But then why are anti-Zionist being ridicule for exposing how Zionism is INFLUENCING U.S Imperialism. These are not two concrete ideologies they are symbiotic and understand, articulating, and educating folks about the symbiosis is extremely important. To only confront “U.S. Imperialism” will leave Zionist off the hook to reemerge whenever they see fit. To build solidarity honesty not deception is vital.

  15. ron said on December 23rd, 2007 at 12:21pm #

    No one is leaving Zionism off the hook.

  16. Deadbeat said on December 23rd, 2007 at 7:03pm #

    No one is leaving Zionism off the hook.

    Then why is the anti-war movement in a shambles when 70% of the population is against the war? The split between UFPJ & and ANSWER is directly the result of the left’s split over this issue. The failure of the left to confront this issue is the reason for the political vacuum that is now being filled and addressed by the right.

  17. ron said on December 23rd, 2007 at 8:23pm #

    I would argue that this is because UFPJ is not anti-imperialist (in additon to not being anti-Zionist, which proves to me that the latter is an adjunct of the former) and ANSWER is anti-imperialist

  18. Deadbeat said on December 24th, 2007 at 1:39am #

    which proves to me that the latter [Zionism] is an adjunct of the former [US Imperialism]

    I agree with your response that UFPJ is not anti-Zionist. However Ron in your DV article of 9/12/07 you define “imperialism” as the following…

    imperialism is the process whereby capitalist nations expand into other countries via economic aid, diplomacy and war in search of raw materials and resources, cheaper labor and new markets

    Ron, using your definition, UFPJ is “anti-imperialist” because they view the War on Iraq as one of resource conquest and like you promote the “War For Oil” fallacy. Unfortunately Ron, now you are saying that UFPJ is not anti-imperialist. Thus Ron, you’ve contradicted yourself.

    My position has been consistent and like International ANSWER, see racism as a tool of conquest. Therefore I agree with you that ANSWER is anti-imperialist. But what make that so?

    To answer that question simply means your definition of “imperialism” requires an extension. It is not enough to constrain the definition of “imperialism” to resource conquest. By doing you’ve negated racism as a basis for war and curtail any discussion thereof.

    Therefore Ron, since your definition of “imperialism” is flawed and incomplete to begin with, limiting the discussion to “imperialism” effectively negates racism as basis for war.

    Returning to my Malcolm X example, Malcolm addressed racism yet during the last years of his life attempted to internationalize his ideas and movement. He linked racism to U.S. Imperialism but unlike you Ron, Malcolm didn’t try to subsume racism to imperialism.

    Therefore Ron, as I been saying on DV, clarity is vital in order to build solidarity. The reason we remember Malcolm as a radical is because he gave us clarity not obscurity.

    Thanks,
    Deadbeat